Proposal of a Compact between the United Nations and Business

(1)

Proposal of a Compact between the United Nations and Business

- a Rhetorical Perspective on World Orders

Mia Forum Palvig

(2)

(3)

ABSTRACT

This thesis explores a micro-perspective on the construction of world orders through rhetorical acts. A neo-Gramscian approach to international relations provides an understanding of world orders as historical structures that are constantly reconstructed. The United Nations takes on a decisive role in shaping and maintaining world orders. The United Nations Global Compact marks a changed approach to business by the United Nations, from code of conduct to collaboration. This thesis sees the change in approach in relation to a broader world order of neo-liberal globalization, zooming in on rhetorical acts on behalf of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan. In five speeches, Kofi Annan addresses business at the World Economic Forum, encouraging participation in the Global Compact. The thesis performs an analysis of those speeches, bringing out the constructed role offered to business. Drawing on the framework of Second Persona, the offered role lends insights into underlying ideology, and the ideology is discussed in terms of how it supports and/or reconstructs neo-liberal world order. The analysis shows how Kofi Annan constructs a hierarchical argument structure that argues how social responsibility should form integral social pillars of a neo-liberal global market and why business should participate in building such pillars (by signing on to the Global Compact). While the ideology of neo-liberal globalization is subject to reconstruction through the idea of social responsibility in the speeches, the thesis finds that, most of all, the offered role and underlying ideology should be understood as a political and discursive support of existing world order of neo-liberal globalization.

In this way, the thesis is an example of speech analysis contributing to international relations by showing how world orders can come to life through a rhetorical micro- perspective.

Key words: Rhetorical analysis, world order, neo-liberal globalization, neo-Gramscian theory, historical structures, rhetorical agency, second persona, the topics, ideology, global market, social responsibility.

(4)

”I propose that you, the business leaders gathered in Davos, and we, the United Nations, initiate a global compact of shared values and principles, which will give a human face to the global market”

-

Kofi Annan at World Economic Forum, February 1

^st

1999

(5)

INTRODUCTION

The approach of the United Nations (UN), an institution that is truly global in nature, towards the private sector has throughout most of its history, broadly speaking, been characterized by an unwillingness to engage and cooperate. This approach largely changed with the inauguration of Kofi Annan as Secretary-General. Especially his multi-stakeholder initiative the Global Compact marks a redefinition of the relationship between the UN and business, from confrontational code-of-conduct to collaborative approach (Rasche, 2012; Hummel, 2005; Bull, 2010). The Global Compact is a voluntary framework for corporations, encouraging them to support ten socially responsible principles in a cooperative venture with the UN. Please see Appendix 1 for a presentation of the United Nations Global Compact.

The fundamental shift in approach is set in a historical context marked by increased interconnectedness in a world that is truly global in nature. The global reality is especially characterized by increasing influence of corporations on the international scene (Bull, 2010). With the Global Compact, Annan creates a stronger tie between the UN and international corporations. Hartwig Hummel (2005) connects the two developments of a changed UN approach and an increasingly influential role of business in global governance, arguing that the introduction of the Global Compact should be directly understood and explained through a framework of an overall neo- liberal world order.

This thesis takes on a similar position; more specifically, it assumes a current neo- liberal world order and approaches the research from that starting point. What I mean by neo-liberal world order will be explained through a theoretical framework of a neo- Gramscian approach to international relations.

International organizations such as the UN take on a crucial role in shaping and maintaining world orders (Hummel, 2005: 6). Following this, the project of Annan – acting as a spearhead for the organization - to strengthen UN-business relations by introducing the Global Compact can be viewed through the lenses of the support and

(9)

reconstruction of a neo-liberal world order. And these are the exact lenses deployed in this thesis.

The thesis takes Hummel’s arguments as a starting point and goes a step further, analyzing how the changed UN approach relates to the construction of world order through rhetorical acts. Neo-liberal world order exists on a macro-scale. Hummel operationalizes neo-liberal world order by applying it to the Global Compact. I take the macro-scale world order further to a micro-level by operationalizing it in rhetorical acts concerning the Global Compact. The influence of the UN lies especially in intellectual contributions; in ideas communicated about the world. “…ideas and concepts are a main driving force in human progress, and they arguably have been one of the most important contributions of the world organization [the UN]” (Sagafi-Nejad, 2008: ix).

Annan officially introduced the Global Compact in a famed speech at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1999, marking the culmination of the new course of the UN (Hummel, 2005: 14). He followed up the speech with four more held at the same forum in 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2006, respectively. The launch of the Global Compact and a redefined approach towards business are arguably rooted in ideas about world order, and speeches are a relevant place to look for reflections of those ideas; a relevant place to look for construction of world order in action.

The thesis will direct the lenses of the reconstruction and maintenance of a neo-liberal world order towards Annan’s speeches, as well as the other way around. Across the speeches, Annan constructs a story, and I will examine the story as expression of world order, by uncovering the underlying ideology. I will search for the underlying ideology by making a speech analysis departing from a rhetorical theoretical framework of agency and second persona. I will introduce this framework thoroughly but, in short, the idea is that the role Annan offers business in the speeches constitutes a window into the underlying ideology. The aim of the thesis is to uncover that ideology and discuss it in terms of a neo-Gramscian understanding of constant reconstruction of world order. I will discuss who creates who, so to speak. Does Annan reconstruct neo-liberal globalization or is he to a greater extent constrained to supporting the existing world order? The thesis is, thus, based upon a premise of neo-liberal globalization constituting current world order. The aim is not to challenge the neo-Gramscian argument of neo-liberal globalization; nor is it the aim to prove the theory in practice.

Rather, the exploration of Annan’s speeches serves as a micro-perspective on the construction of world order. It shows how rhetoric can make world orders come to life.

(10)

Research question

The thesis is guided by the following research question and sub-questions:

How do the speeches held by Kofi Annan at the World Economic Forum relate to a world order of neo-liberal globalization?

1. How can Annan’s speeches be understood as supporting and/or reconstructing a world order of neo-liberal globalization?

2. What insights do Annan’s speeches lend into the construction of neo-liberal world order on a rhetorical micro-scale?

3. More specifically, how does the underlying ideology inherent in the second persona constructed in the speeches support and/or reconstruct a world order of neo-liberal globalization?

Thesis outline

To answer the research question, the thesis is structured as follows. Chapter 1 presents the neo-Gramscian theoretical framework that explains the adopted view upon the nature of world orders as well as presents the characteristics of the assumed world order of neo-liberal globalization. As the choice of theory and the assumed world order provide an overall framework for the thesis, including for the adopted philosophy of science, it is presented in the first chapter. Chapter 2 then outlines the adopted research strategy, including the philosophical standpoint and the research methodology. Chapter 3 sets the speeches in a broader context and in a specific situation, which is necessary to qualify the interpretive analysis. This is followed by the speech analysis approach in Chapter 4, presenting a 3-step theoretical and practical approach applied to the analysis. Chapter 5 presents an in-depth analysis of the five speeches, bringing forward the constructed story and second persona. Please refer to the five speeches in Appendix 2. The insights brought forward by the analysis are then discussed in Chapter 6, in terms of the underlying ideology and the construction of neo- liberal globalization. The conclusion completes the thesis and presents an answer to the research question.

The structure of the thesis is visualized in Figure 1 on the following page.

(11)

(12)

CHAPTER 1 NEO-GRAMSCIAN APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

This chapter presents the theoretical framework that this thesis locates itself within. In short, the key perception lend by this framework is the idea that world orders are constantly reconstructed in historical contexts. International organizations such as the UN take on a crucial role in shaping and maintaining world orders, as does Annan through his role as a so-called organic intellectual (Hummel, 2005: 24). The chapter begins with an explanation of neo-Gramscian understanding of the nature of world orders, followed by a presentation of the characteristics of a current world order of neo- liberal globalization that this thesis takes on as a point of reference.

Neo-Gramscian theory applies a critical theory approach to the study of international relations that explores the interface of ideas, institutions and material capabilities as shaping world order. The approach goes behind theories of prevailing world order, so to speak, and establishes a theoretical framework for understanding how world orders emerge, develop and change. In this sense, the neo-Gramscian approach challenges a deadlock between the so-called realist and liberal schools of thought by viewing the very theoretical foundations of the two streams as shaped historically in context of a particular world order (Cox, 1981: 129; Underhill, 2006: 15). Let us start from the beginning.

The neo-Gramscian perspective can be traced to Robert W. Cox's 1981 article ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’ and his 1983 article ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method’. It is an approach to understanding international relations heavily influenced by the writings of early 20^th century Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci (Scherrer, 2004: 112). For instance, Cox builds on a Gramscian understanding of hegemony as based not on coercion and dominance, but on broad acceptance of a certain order (Gill and Law, 1989).

The overall mission of Cox’s two articles was to forge a critical study of international relations, as opposed to the mainstream problem-solving (in the words of Cox) theories

(13)

of the time (Cox, 1981: 128). Mainstream neo-realist and neo-liberal approaches assume that basic features of the international system are static, and the theoretical approaches are concerned with solving problems and maintaining power relationships in such a constant system (Bieler and Morton, 2004: 86). They do not particularly interrogate the origin and development of power relationships and systems.

Structural changes in the recent course of history have many times challenged the idea of constant power structures. The end of the Cold War is one example of major structural changes. During the Cold War, international relations theory rotated around managing a world system pinned down by two superpowers. According to Cox, prevailing international relations theories of the time did not provide a satisfying framework to understand the emerging uncertainty in power relations because the uncertainties contravened fixed features of a constant international system. Streams of critical theory emanated from the structural changes, sharing the common belief that systems and relationships can not be understood as causal, nor studied objectively (Bieler and Morton, 2003: 1). Cox’s development of a neo-Gramscian approach should be seen as part of this rejection of mainstream approaches on behalf of critical international relations theories (Underhill, 2006: 15; Bieler and Morton, 2004: 86).

Following the arguments of Cox, theories of international relations should not concern themselves with problem-solving objectives in a fixed frame, for theories concerning the social can never claim to have direct access to the truth. A theory always emancipates from a certain standpoint in time and space, rooted in certain ideologies.

“Theory is always for someone and for some purpose” (Cox, 1981: 128). According to Cox, the purpose must be laid bare to reveal the perspectives behind theories presenting themselves as divorced from context and certain understandings. Problem- solving theory springs from a purpose of providing a direct response to problems posed within the particular perspective that the theory operates within. Critical theory, including neo-Gramscianism, springs from a purpose of becoming aware of the perspectives that give rise to theorizing and becoming aware of the choice of other perspectives to create an alternative world. So, the object of critical theory is to achieve perspective on perspectives, so to speak. More specifically, neo-Gramscian theory seeks to understand and question the forces constituting world order. In the words of Cox, neo-Gramscian critical theory “…does not take institutions and social and power relations for granted but calls them into question by concerning itself with their origins and how and whether they might be in the process of changing” (Cox, 1981:

129).

Cox (1981: 135ff) states five premises upon which his conception of a neo-Gramscian critical approach rests:

(14)

1. All action takes place within a framework which constitutes its problematic. Neo- Gramscian theory seeks to understand those frameworks.

2. Theories are also shaped by the same frameworks, of which they must be aware and thereby be conscious of their own relativity in a broad time-perspective. Cox argues that “…no period of history has the capacity both to assess the nature of the problems it faces and to predict the future in light of those problems” (Hoogvelt, A.

et al, 1999: 395).

3. The framework for action changes over time. Neo-Gramscian theory seeks to understand those changes.

4. The framework has the shape of a historical structure, which is a picture of a particular configuration of forces. The historical structure does not determine actions in any direct, mechanical way but imposes expectations and constraints.

As expressed in the first sub-question of the research question, one of the aims of the speech analysis is concerned with examining how the story constructed in the speeches is constrained by existing historical structure (neo-liberal globalization, as I will elaborate on later in this chapter) and how it can reconstruct it.

5. The historical structure must be grasped from the bottom (as this thesis does) or from the outside.

Thus, the primary object of neo-Gramscian analysis is a configuration of forces called historical structures which change over time and shape actions and understandings.

Let us have a closer look.

Historical structures

As pointed out in the fourth premise mentioned above, historical structures are based on a configuration of forces. Cox identifies three categories of forces that interact reciprocally to form a structure: Material capabilities, ideas and institutions (Cox, 1981:

136ff). The forces are interdependent and can not be understood in isolation of each other (Hummel, 2005: 4). The structures created through the three forces can then be hegemonic, which I will turn to shortly.

Material capabilities

Material capabilities are understood as productive potentials, i.e. natural resources and stocks of equipment and the wealth and capabilities needed to command these. Power based on control of production processes.

Ideas

Cox identifies two overall kinds of ideas. One is so-called intersubjective meanings.

They are shared ideas about the nature of social relations, and they set expectations that guide behavior. Intersubjective meanings in world politics are, for example, shared notions about certain kinds of overall authority, relationships and behavior between

(15)

people, states and other actors. Cox uses the examples that states have authority over defined territory, people are organized in states, and certain kinds of behavior are expected for certain kinds of situations, such as a situation where one state threatens the borders of another. These notions transcend long periods of time, yet their origins can still be traced historically.

The other kind of ideas that form historical structure is collective images of social order. They are views held across groups of people and different groups can hold different and conflicting collective images. In this characteristic they differ from intersubjective meanings, which form broadly common ground throughout a particular historical structure. Clashes between collective images show potential for the emergence of a new structure on the basis of alternative material and institutional basis.

Institutions

Cox attaches the concept of institutionalization to the process of stabilizing and supporting a particular order, shaped through material capabilities and ideas. This process takes place within institutions, and international institutions thus play a key role in supporting and influencing world orders on a global scale. Institutions reflect particular configurations of material capabilities and ideas and can also influence the development of material capabilities and new ideas.

The three forces together shape historical structures, or world orders.

If a given historical structure dominates across all three forces, it can be said to be hegemonic. Hegemony is a key neo-Gramscian concept.

Hegemony and world order

The concept of hegemony is most often tied to neo-realist hegemonic stability theory, explaining a world order constituted by the dominance of one powerful state, as was for example a widespread perception of world order dominated by the Unites States following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Hegemonic stability theory concerns order among states; an order where one state sets hegemonic rules by dominating others on the grounds of military and economic superiority. Cox’s concept of hegemony dissociates itself from power through coercive dominance. Neo-Gramscian hegemony, like its neo-realist counterpart, seeks to analyze the stability of world order(s). Only, the concept of hegemony coined by Gramsci and developed by Cox is not about order among states; rather, it is about a broad acceptance of a certain order, political and social. So it exists as a form of dominance, but it refers to the dominance of an order through broad collective consent, not the dominance of a certain state (Cox, 1983: 170;

Hummel, 2005: 4-5). World hegemony is explained as a stabile world order that is:

(16)

…based on a coherent conjunction or fit between a configuration of material power, the prevalent collective image of world order (including certain norms) and set of institutions which administer the order with a certain resemblance of universality (i.e. not just as the overt instruments of a particular state’s dominance). (Cox, 1981: 139)

In line with the three forces constituting historical structures, hegemony is, thus, a social structure, an economic structure and a political structure, and it must be all three simultaneously (Cox, 1981: 137). So, hegemony is a stabile historic structure based on collective consent, rooted in the acceptance of ideas and supported by material resources and institutions (Bieler and Morton, 2003: 1). Historic structures can also be non-hegemonic, if dominant orders are not backed by collective consent. For example, a state might found a hegemonic order in a neo-realist sense, but the hegemony must be universal in the sense that the order must be compatible with the interests of most other states (Cox, 1983: 171) or at least perceived to be.

Organic intellectuals and counterhegemony

Now I have established how neo-Gramscianism explains the constant development of world orders through three categories of forces. As explained, historical structures are largely dependent on ideas and ideologies, which are by neo-Gramscians given the same energy as material forces to change the world. Some individuals hold positions that grant them opportunity to influence collective images more than other individuals.

These individuals are referred to as organic intellectuals (Cox, 1983: 168). As ideas hold the potential to change the world, organic intellectuals can potentially yield great influence on world order. They are individuals who can engage masses by making people aware of their position in society and question contemporary politics. Organic intellectuals can be defined as:

…those able to theorize the conditions of existence of the system as a whole, suggest policies and their justifications, and, if need be, apply them. Such intellectuals need to synthesize a strategic vision with the technical and political ability to realize it in practice. (Gill & Law, 1989: 488)

Annan is most definitely an organic intellectual in the neo-Gramscian sense. As the leader of the largest political institution in the world, he is at the forefront of theorizing as well as influencing the world system as a whole. With the Global Compact, Annan presents a strategic vision of UN-business cooperation, and the speeches at the WEF are expressions of this vision. He has the political power to realize the Global Compact in practice, although he needs the support of business in translating the vision into a practical success. The ideas that organic intellectuals like Annan have the potential to promote can, on the one hand, be used to stabilize a hegemonic historical structure, but

(17)

they can also be used in an emancipatory fashion to make people aware of and break free from existing structures (Benton & Craib, 2011: 136-140). This refers to the first sub-question of this thesis; Annan has the potential to support as well as reconstruct the neo-liberal historical structure.

The potential to question and make a break with existing structures can ultimately take the shape of counterhegemony. Counterhegemony refers to an alternative interpretation of the functioning of social, economic, and political institutions than the existing one. If a counterhegemonic movement grows large enough, it is able to challenge and possibly replace the historical structure it is born in. Through persuasion or propaganda, a counterhegemonic movement attempts to increase the number of people who share its view on the hegemonic order, ultimately to overthrow the current hegemony (Cox, 1983: 174).

This lays the groundwork for a neo-Gramscian understanding of the nature of world orders. The following presents the characteristics of a current world order of neo- liberal globalization that this thesis takes on as an assumption. Starting off, a brief account of the rise of neo-liberal globalization as a hegemonic structure is put forward, which should by no means be perceived as comprehensive. But it is adequate for the purpose of this thesis, and any depiction will in a way be insufficient, as the processes between different historical structures are in no means linear or uncontested.

The emergence and characteristics of neo-liberal globalization

World orders are constantly reconstructed, taking the shape of historical structures that are in a continuous process of development and change. Hegemony can never be taken for granted and hegemonic historical structures are always marked by contradictions and challenges from social forces. A new historical structure emerges gradually from a reconstruction of the previous one and usually takes on a hegemonic status in pace with growing contestation of the previous hegemonic project (Hummel, 2005: 5).

The hegemonic historical structure of neo-liberal globalization dominating the time of Annan’s speeches has gradually evolved from a former Fordist hegemony, coined in the 1930s by Gramsci, among others. Cox refers to the Fordist regime led by the United States after World War II as Pax Americana (Bieler and Morton, 2004: 93-94; Cox, 1981: 144). Put into the framework of the three constituting forces argued by neo- Gramscian theory, Fordism was marked by mass production in terms of material capabilities, modernization in terms of ideology, and welfare nationalism and

(18)

embedded liberalism¹ in terms of political institutions (Hummel, 2005: 6; Bieler and Morton, 2004: 94). During the economic crisis of the 1970s, the Fordist hegemonic project became increasingly challenged. There was a loss of trust in the ability of the welfare state to secure economic prosperity (Hoogvelt, A. et al, 1999: 394; Bull, 2010:

185), and there was an increasing belief in the ability of the free market as a driver of growth. At the same time, internationalization of production made business and capital increasingly mobile and powerful and increasingly difficult for states to control (Bieler and Morton, 2004: 94). Overall, the change was a turn away from interventionist approaches towards market-based ones; an increasingly global market, that is. The result of the developments was the rise of a new historical structure.

The new historical structure gained momentum through the three reciprocally interacting categories of forces identified by Cox: Material capabilities, ideas and institutions. As mentioned, globalized production processes put power in the hands of business (Bieler and Morton, 2004: 95), and with this power followed an ideational power to advance a strong collective image of a free global market as the only road to economic growth. In the words of Cox, “There has emerged an ideological belief that the right way to develop is to open up the world to capitalism as the primary impetus to development” (Hoogvelt, A. et al, 1999: 394). The power over material capabilities and ideas, in turn, influenced the world of politics towards policies supporting market liberalization and deregulation, institutionalized through the diffusion of the Washington Consensus². The result, gaining hegemony during the 1980s, was a neo- liberal world order (Hummel, 2005: 23).

The current world order of neo-liberal globalization that this thesis assumes is complex and multifaceted, but, building on the theoretical foundation from the rest of this chapter, sufficiently characterized through the three constituting and interdependent forces as follows (Hummel, 2005: 6, 23):

Material capabilities: Globalized production. Business holds increasing control of production processes, meaning increasing power over material capabilities and increasing influence in a global world order.

Ideas: The prevalent collective image of social order is currently (in the developed world, at least) an ideology of privatization and liberalization.

Institutions: Global governance and transnational networks.

1 Embedded liberalism refers to a global economic system and political orientation marked by a combination of international free trade and freedom for states to intervene in the economy to secure domestic stability and welfare (Bieler and Morton, 2004: 94).

2 Washington Consensus was originally coined in 1989 to name ten specific policies in an economic reform package promoted by US financial institutions. It has later come to refer to a broader ideology of a

(19)

To sum up this chapter, world orders take the shape of historical structures that are constant reconstructions of material capabilities, ideas and institutions. Coherence between all three forces is necessary to secure a hegemonic world order; that is, a stabile historic structure based on collective consent (Cox, 1981). Institutions like the UN play a key part in the constitution of historical structures, both in terms of political and discursive support. Business might hold substantive power in terms of material capabilities, but if it is not embedded politically through institutions with a certain resemblance of universality, it will not be accepted in world society as a collective image of world order (Cox, 1981: 139).

Hummel (2005) uses the constantly changing nature of historical structures and the rise of neo-liberal globalization to explain the change in UN approach towards business that the Global Compact represents; from interventionist to cooperative. In Chapter 3, I will draw out the highlights from this neo-Gramscian analysis to serve as part of a broader historical context for understanding the speeches. For, in line with neo- Gramscian theory, I see the relationship between the UN and business not as structurally determined, but dependent on agency in historical frameworks of action.

While the hegemony of neo-liberal globalization shapes understandings and imposes expectations and constraints for Annan to operate within, as an organic intellectual representing a major political institution Annan has the potential to support or reconstruct neo-liberal globalization through influence on ideas about social order. The speeches are analyzed as realizations of this potential through rhetorical acts.

The following chapter unfolds the research strategy.

(20)

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH STRATEGY

The following will address the adopted methodological approach to answering the research question. I will account for how the research is conducted, explain the methodological choices and reflect upon their effect on the research outcomes. Firstly, my philosophical approach to the research is openly accounted for, touching upon theory of knowledge in the nexus of the fields of rhetoric and international relations.

Secondly, I account in a more specific manner for the research methodology, along two overall lines; method of data collection and method of data analysis.

Philosophy of science

Knowledge is not simply knowledge. It is relevant to make epistemological considerations as obtainment of knowledge is not a given and agreed upon process.

What is considered to be acceptable as knowledge is linked to different philosophies of science concerned with the nature of knowledge and research, attempting to define the process of knowledge creation by pointing to basic principles and questions of validity within different disciplines of science (Fuglsang and Olsen, 2004: 8). Research philosophy sets assumptions about how to perceive and make sense of the world. The adopted research philosophy, then, guides how I make sense of the research field and how I set out to develop knowledge in the thesis. I do not as a researcher commit to a specific philosophy of science, per se, but I apply a perspective on the research and in order to make reflected methodological choices I must be conscious of that perspective and the premises it sets.

Inherent in neo-Gramscian theory is a view that world orders are not given structures;

rather, they are constructed in social and historic context. I adhere to this view, and it is reflected in the research question. Just like the use of neo-Gramscian theory, the idea that the construction of world orders exists on a rhetorical micro-scale reflect an overall interpretivist research philosophy. Interpretivism focuses on understanding the meaning behind social reality rather than measuring it. For the social world is

(21)

constructed and we make sense of it through our subjective interpretations (Fuglsang and Olsen, 2004: 19). In the study of the social, interpretivists argue that objective research and the discovery of universal truths is not possible. The interpretivist philosophical stance taken in this thesis is expressed on many levels. It is expressed in the overall perception that guides how I make sense of the research field; namely, that world orders take the shape of historic structures and that social forces help construct those structures. It is expressed in the hypothesis that Annan’s speeches can be acts of constructing social reality, for social reality is not viewed as phenomena that exist objectively ‘out there’, independent of the context that Annan and the UN both shape and operate in. Also, the interpretivist stance is expressed in how I set out to develop knowledge; not by measuring, but by interpreting Annan’s speeches. I will explain the research approach in depth shortly.

Constructivist interpretivism

Within a framework of interpretivism, neo-Gramscian theory is an inhabitant of the constructivist school, setting out to critically question and understand world order, as opposed to the goals of problem-solving approaches. The academic goal of Robert Cox is, in his own words, to understand the structures that underlie the world (Hoogvelt et al, 1999: 390). Not measure and quantify, but understand. The thesis operates within this view that world orders are continuously shaped and reconstructed. So, within an interpretivist philosophy of science, my ontological position is marked by constructivism. Constructivism in international relations refers to aspects of international relations (here, world order) as socially and historically constructed as collective phenomena (Wendt, 1995: 75). Following neo-Gramscian thought, the way we perceive and understand world order is always influenced by that same world order, for we can not place ourselves outside it. Unlike earlier Marxist critical theory, the goal is not to distinguish ’false’ knowledge from ’true’ knowledge in order to liberate people from systemic ideologies that are, in reality, a construction. The nature of reality – or world order – as being socially and historically constructed means that we can not place ourselves outside and offer ‘true’ knowledge. World order might be socially constructed, but it is still real to us and shapes our understandings. Cox argues:

It seems to me that there is a way in which people often speak of reality, as though it were something apart from us […] My sense of reality has always been more historicised: reality is a sense of the world which is constantly created and re-created by people in different circumstances. (Hoogvelt et al, 1999: 393)

This links to the aim of analyzing how Annan supports and reconstructs a world order of neo-liberal globalization. The aim of this thesis is not concerned with breaking down constructed world order; rather, it is constructivist in the sense that I seek to

(22)

understand the construction of world orders as “…a historical phenomenon that changes constantly…” (Hoogvelt et al, 1999: 393), and in the sense that ideas about world order are not taken for granted. An example is the idea of a global market, a key term across Annan’s speeches that I will analyze in depth as a construction, rather than take for granted. In general, the aim of a constructivist approach to international relations, including neo-Gramscianism, is to gain perspective on perspectives; I seek to gain perspective on the construction of world orders by examining neo-liberal world order through the lenses of Annan’s speeches.

In line with the critical approach argued by Cox, I see the speeches as taking place within an overall framework, as it is necessary to “…sit back from all the detail and ask yourself broader questions about how the whole is changing...” (Hoogvelt, A. et al, 1999: 393). That is, in this context, to understand the speeches as part of changing world orders. I also turn this upside down, zooming in on the detail to show how the whole is changing. It can be a disadvantage of critical theory that it “…directs our attention to the whole even though we might acknowledge that when you look at the whole you are going to miss a lot of the detail” (Hoogvelt, A. et al, 1999: 394). The speech analysis offers an example of how changing world orders can take place in detail.

Hermeneutic interpretivism

As well as constructivism, I lean on a hermeneutic branch of interpretivism, especially in terms of the level of the research approach concerned with how I set out to develop knowledge from the speeches. Following the tradition of hermeneutics means that I interpret the speeches as set in context. I do not analyze them as independent objects but as existing in a circular relationship with the rhetor (Annan) and the historical context. The same goes for me as an interpreter, meaning that my context shapes prejudices that affect how I make sense of the speeches. “…the critic cannot assimilate the text until it is filtered through his or her own conceptual apparatus. Meaning cannot be assigned to expression except by reference to something outside the original expression…” (Leff, 1980: 344). This does not hinder my ability to make interpretations, but it entails that I do not create objective results (Gadamer, 2004).

Hermeneutics is at the basis of critical theory (Fuglsang and Olsen, 2004: 19), including critical theory within international relations, herein counting neo-Gramscian theory and the quest to question world order. I seek to gain a perspective on the process of changing world orders by analyzing the speeches as concrete research objects expressing the process of changing world orders on a micro-scale. I am aware that there are other potential outcomes from such an exercise, as knowledge is always situated (Abbott, 2004: 50); however, keeping with the interpretivist tradition, I do not seek to locate absolute truths.

(23)

In the following, the research approach is addressed, explaining how I seek to shed light on the research field and reflecting on the type of outcomes that can be expected from the adopted approach. The root in interpretivist philosophy of science is hopefully evident.

Research methodology

The overall methodology applied in this thesis is speech analysis. There are two levels of methodology: Method of data collection and method of data analysis.

Method of data collection

Accounting for my method of data collection means accounting for how and why I have chosen the specific speeches as objects of analysis.

The WEF is a key forum for the political world and the business world to meet. In this sense, it is a relevant scene to look for manifests of a neo-liberal world order marked by an increase in business power. The existence of the Forum is in itself a sign of an increasing role of business in global governance (Hummel, 2005: 11), and when addressing the Forum, Annan, representing the political world, expresses a position about the changing role of business; he offers business a certain role. It is this role that I will examine as relating to neo-liberal world order. The role is presented in a framework for action; namely, the Global Compact. It is a widespread perception (Hummel, 2005; Rasche, 2012) that the 1999 speech introducing the Global Compact marks the culmination of a new course of the UN, led by Annan. The new course of the UN, and the expressed role of business in the global world that this course navigates within, is elaborated on across the 1999 speech and Annan’s four following addresses at WEF during his term as Secretary-General. Annan chose the Forum as the place and time to introduce and find support for the spearhead of a more open UN approach – the Global Compact. Given such key role, these exact speeches seem relevant to examine as expressions of world order. They seem a relevant research object that can lend insights into how Annan views the overlapping worlds of business and politics;

into how he relates to and possibly influences a current world order. Furthermore, all five speeches are held within the same framework, in front of roughly the same audience, and so I expect them to build upon a joint story. Compared to bringing in speeches held by Annan across different settings, I expect to find a progression, i.e. that the constructed story and role of business unfolds across these exact speeches.

Therefore, I have made the five speeches held by Kofi Annan at the WEF from 1999 to 2006 my objects of analysis.

(24)

Method of data analysis

My interpretivist philosophical approach is reflected in the choice of a small number of speeches. I do not seek to locate replicable causal relationships in a quantitative, positivist manner. Rather, the method of data analysis is qualitative through interpretation. Although I do not create objective results, my interpretation rests upon a rhetorical theoretical foundation and a toolbox for rhetorical analysis with which I qualify the analysis. The approach, theoretical as well as practical, to developing knowledge from the speeches has three levels which are presented immediately prior to the speech analysis itself. Although this three-level foundation constitutes a theoretically supported method of approaching the speeches, it does not set a rigid framework that I place the content of the speeches into. That is, I do not adhere to a deductive approach where a theoretical basis forms a hypothesis that is then tested in practice. This goes both for the rhetorical and political levels of analysis in this thesis; I do not test the neo-Gramscian theory of neo-liberal world order through Annan’s speeches, nor do I pass judgment on the speeches based on rhetorical theory. Instead, the interpretation of the speeches is an end in itself (Jasinski, 2001: 251). Not because the interpretation can inform the proposal of a new theory, as is often the goal of an inductive approach; an understanding of the speeches is in itself the primary goal. The speeches are analyzed as an expression of neo-liberal world order, yes, but neither to test neo-Gramscian theory, nor to develop a new theory of world order in an inductive manner. Instead, I follow an interpretive approach that is expressed in the context of rhetorical analysis by Michael Leff, who argues that within this discipline, the process of theory “… does not take the form of a ladder leading up to or down from high order abstractions. Instead, such theory moves along the broken ground covered by the specific material of the discipline” (Leff, 1980: 347). My approach to the analysis and discussion can be explained as abduction, where theory and ‘text’ inform each other reciprocally. I make sense of the speeches by performing conceptually-oriented criticism, where key concepts from the speeches form focal points of analysis (Jasinski, 2001: 256). In the words of James Jasinski, “…theory and criticism in rhetorical studies intersect in the development of conceptually grounded, interpretive accounts of particular discursive performances” (Jasinski, 2001: 261).

The contribution of an interpretive approach to rhetorical criticism is that it provides a holistic understanding of the speeches. The speeches are not simply seen as artifacts to be judged on their ability to work according to the author’s intention in the particular situation (Gadamer, 2004). Instead, as well as providing an in-depth understanding of the speeches, interpretation allows me to gain knowledge about the role of the speeches in the particular situation and in a broader context; the context of the construction of a neo-liberal world order. For, as I will develop later (in Chapter 3), I see rhetorical acts as constituting reality, not just emerging in the wake of existing reality (Villadsen,

(25)

2009: 41-45). My interpretive account of Annan’s speeches, then, constitutes a window into the process of neo-liberal world order in practice.

The method used in this thesis, then, is rhetorical analysis. I do not perform discourse analysis, which is a related and widely used approach to the research field of world orders (Jørgensen and Phillips, 1999: 9). As such, this thesis could take its place as part of a broader discourse analysis. The above outlined philosophical standpoints of dissociation with the detection of ‘true’ knowledge outside ideological haze and of socially constructed reality, indeed, are very similar to philosophical standpoints inherent in the idea of discourse (Hansen, 2004: 410). An example of similarity in analytical approach is how key concepts from the speeches form focal points of analysis. Only, I examine them to make sense of the speeches, rather than to make sense of a neo-liberal discourse. That is, the specific research strategy employed here offers a more detail-oriented approach. The analysis on micro-level does not feed into a quest to shed light on neo-liberal world order on a macro-level, and this is the primary motivation to choose the approach of speech analysis. Discourse analysis would primarily find the speeches interesting as a gateway to understanding and revealing the exclusions of the neo-liberal discourse they are expressions of (Hansen, 2004: 402, 406). As touched upon in the above paragraph, the speeches are not analyzed in order to expose or understand neo-liberal ideology, or discourse; I find the speeches interesting in their own right. To refer to some of the five underlying premises of a neo- Gramscian approach presented in Chapter 1 (page 7), the project undertaken in this thesis assigns most focus to the third, and very little to the first premise. That is, the primary aim is not to deepen an understanding of neo-liberal globalization, but to understand and show how historical structures can change through rhetorical acts.

Annan’s speeches show how world orders can be constructed on a micro-level, through rhetorical acts. Thus, the interpretation of the speeches is an end in itself (Jasinski, 2001: 251), whereas discourse analysts tend to study specific texts to get at broader regularities.

Before moving on, I will make a note about how I address the relationship between the speeches and the UN as a whole. As already mentioned, and this point will reoccur throughout the thesis, the Global Compact is a spearhead of a more open approach by the UN towards business. This does, however, not mean that this thesis argues that the initiative represents the whole UN system. More importantly, I do not set out to argue that the expressions about the Global Compact (the speeches) represent an attitude towards business across the whole UN system. By performing the analysis and discussion, I am not able to make conclusions about the role of the UN or the role of business in a neo-liberal world order, nor is it my intention. The intention is to interpret the speeches as expressions of world order and shed light on their role in a constant reconstruction of that same world order. Of course, the reason why it is

(26)

relevant to analyze the speeches as influential in terms of world order is the status of Annan as political leader of an influential institution. As explained, he acts as an organic intellectual in a neo-Gramscian sense. But Kofi Annan is not necessarily seen as representing the whole UN system; in fact, the definition of his role versus the UN is not necessary for answering the research question.

This being said, a hermeneutic interpretation sees the speeches as set in a context, and so a reflection on the framework of the speeches precedes the speech analysis and the context is continually drawn into the analysis. The next chapter presents this reflection on the speeches in a setting.

(27)

CHAPTER 3 THE SPEECHES IN A SETTING

Before moving on to an analysis of the content of the five speeches, I will shed some light on the elements that frame the speeches, or constitute the setting. The speeches are not just flowing in mid-air, so to speak, cut off from time and space. Rather, they exist in a specific situation and in a broader context that influence the speeches by placing possibilities and constraints on them. So the speech analysis, and the thesis as a whole for that matter, illuminates a small section of a broader process. The following provides a reflection on the framework of the speeches to set the scene for the speech analysis.

In line with a hermeneutic interpretative stance, I see the speeches as set in a context, and in line with the adopted neo-Gramscian approach, this context is constantly changing historical structures and neo-liberal globalization. While Annan as an organic intellectual has the potential to support and reconstruct neo-liberal globalization through influence on ideas about social order, the hegemony of neo-liberal globalization also shapes understandings and imposes expectations and constraints for Annan to operate within. I have already outlined the characteristics of neo-liberal globalization (page 10), and so the following, in preparing for the speech analysis, concretizes the framework of the speeches by connecting the history of UN-business relations and the introduction of the Global Compact to the context of world orders, in order to understand the historical frame that Annan operates within. The following also sheds light on the specific situation that the speeches are held in. With situation I refer to the specific setting in which the speeches are situated. Seeing as speeches are acts in a specific setting, prepared and held in that setting, an interpretation of the speeches must first reflect upon the setting. So, the scene of the WEF and the audience to which the speeches are directed will be described in order to set the scene for the speeches.

Prior to that, however, I provide a reflection on the wider context of the speeches, referring to a societal setting in a broader sense. Reflection on this broader context takes up the most part of this chapter, as the aim of the thesis is to set the speeches in relation to a broader societal and ideological context of neo-liberal globalization.

(28)

In terms of the discussion on how Annan can shape or is shaped by existing world order, a line can be drawn to the role of rhetor versus the role of the situation in rhetorical theory. Lloyd Bitzer and Richard Vatz have each formulated an approach that can be said to inhabit opposite extremities of a scale of the relationship between rhetoric and situation. On one end of the scale, Bitzer (1968) advocates that the situation is critical to rhetoric. In fact, the situation is not just critical, but determining for the rhetorical act. A speech occurs as a result of a vacuum created by a rhetorical situation: "A speech will be rhetorical when it is a response to the kind of situation which is rhetorical” (Bitzer, 1968: 10). According to Vatz, whose work inhabits the opposite end of the rhetoric-situation scale, the relationship must be turned upside down; rhetoric creates the situation. We interpret situations through the way in which others explain or otherwise communicate them to us: “To the audience, events become meaningful only through their linguistic depiction” (Vatz, 1973: 157). Unlike Bitzer, Vatz argues that rhetor is not a puppet controlled by the situation, but can control how the situation is interpreted. The speaker has the power to determine content and structure and, equally important, what is omitted.

Rhetoric moves in the continuum between the two approaches, and rather than perceiving them as conflicting, I acknowledge and draw on both. I acknowledge that the situation and broader context constrains Annan’s space for action, while believing that his rhetorical acts have constitutive potential to influence the context, in turn. No matter to which side the pendulum swings, is it relevant to reflect upon the situation and context surrounding Annan’s rhetorical acts – as it influences and/or is influenced by the speeches.

Let us turn first to the history of UN-relations, in order to understand the historical frame that Annan operates within. This broader societal context is relevant to keep in mind when interpreting the speeches, as “Rhetorical works belong to the class of things which obtain their character from the circumstances of the historic context in which they occur” (Bitzer, 1968: 3).

The historical context of UN-business relations

I have already made the point that the introduction of the Global Compact initiative marked a fundamental change in UN approach to business (Hummel, 2005; Rasche, 2012). Here, I will connect a few words to the developments in the approach, to set a broader historical context relevant to the interpretation of Annan’s speeches and forming a first step in connecting the primary theme of the speeches – the Global Compact – to the neo-Gramscian historical framework of neo-liberal globalization. To make this outline, I draw on existing literature, primarily the analysis made by Hummel (2005) of the changing relationship seen through a neo-Gramscian perspective of changing world orders.

(29)

The Global Compact is by far the first attempt of the UN to deal with TNCs (transnational corporations) (Rasche, 2012: 34). In the decades following World War II, no global international regime existed to govern TNCs. The UN, inter-governmental in its construction, did not have the mandate to regulate that area, either. As corporations increasingly expanded across national borders, their activities began to appear on the political agenda. At this point, the approach towards TNCs was largely marked by concern, and the dominating focus was on the rights of host states, also in the UN. As explained, the international economic order of the 1960s and 70s was dominated by embedded liberalism of a Fordist historical structure, placing the regulation of TNCs on national governments (Hummel, 2005: 23). This practice was further strengthened when, after criticism in the international community on the conduct of TNCs, the UN passed a charter that granted host states the right to regulate and supervise the activities of TNCs³. At the same time, in 1974, the UN established an intergovernmental Commission on Transnational Corporations with the primary task of drafting a code of conduct to regulate the behavior of TNCs (Hummel, 2005: 9). This code-of-conduct approach characterized the UN’s relationship with business in the following years.

However, although the idea of legally binding regulation dominated in the UN, it was largely opposed by business, political elites in the OECD countries and liberal economists (Hummel, 2005: 9). And without coherence between all three forces, to follow the conceptual universe of neo-Gramscianism, a historical structure will never prevail, let alone be sustained. “With the rise of neo-liberal globalization in the 1980s the negotiations on an international regime for TNCs began to stagnate” (Hummel, 2005: 10), and this was reflected in the failure of the before-mentioned Commission to ever pass the intended code of conduct (Bull, 2010: 182); in fact, the Commission was closed in 1992. Developments towards increased inclusion of TNCs into global politics took off, with the World Economic Forum as a key platform for political and business leaders to meet. The focus of international negotiations was increasingly shifting from the protection of host nations to the protection of business against state regulations (Hummel, 2005: 11).

As the new neo-liberal historical structure gained footing, the UN continued to advocate a focus on social policies well into the 1990s, with UN agencies like UNICEF and UNDP criticizing economic liberalization policies. So, “During Boutros Boutros- Ghali’s term as Secretary-General of the United Nations, the United Nations were not fully supportive of neo-liberal globalization yet” (Hummel, 2005: 13). This shifted with the inauguration of Annan and his intention to reform the institution, spearheaded by the Global Compact (Bull, 2010: 183).

3 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. UN General Assembly Resolution 3281 (XXIX) of 12 December 1974

(30)

Neo-liberal globalization met substantive criticism in the beginning and middle of the 1990s. Trade liberalization negotiations were countered with mass demonstrations and a growing counter-movement. In this period, the concept of CSR presented a possibility to relegitimize the world order. Reconstructing neo-liberal globalization by inviting social responsibility into business practice could support the hegemony of the historical structure. The growing awareness in the business environment of the threats presented by pressure for corporate responsibility opened a window of opportunity for Annan to gain support for the Global Compact (Hummel, 2005: 24, 26).

The failed attempt to pass a code of conduct shows clearly how the UN, despite its political and intellectual leadership, cannot just set the agenda independent of other prevalent forces and ideas in society. Neo-liberal globalization constitutes the overall ideological and economic context that Annan’s speeches operate in. This sets a framework but it does not necessarily mean that he is in no position to influence that framework. That question is at the heart of this thesis; how the story Annan constructs in the speeches reflects existing neo-liberal world order and how it reconstructs and challenges it.

Next, let me introduce you to Annan, not as an isolated subject, but as rooted in the broader social and historical context outlined above (Villadsen, 2009: 44). By following especially the arguments of Vatz, rhetor is ascribed an important role in analysis: ”We do not just have the academic exercise of determining whether the rhetor understood the "situation" correctly. Instead, he must assume responsibility for the salience he has created” (Vatz, 1973: 158). Annan is able to make some rhetorical choices that I will illuminate throughout the rhetorical analysis. Following a brief introduction to Annan, I turn to the specific setting in which Annan’s rhetorical acts and the broader context get together, so to speak – in front of the audience at the WEF.

Rhetor

Kofi Annan, a long time UN bureaucrat, took office as UN Secretary-General in 1997, replacing Boutros Boutros-Ghali and eventually succeeded by Ban Ki-moon in 2007.

From the beginning of his period, Annan was on a mission to fundamentally reform management of the UN. In July 1997 he issued a complete reform agenda called

‘Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform’, proposing a new management structure and key sectoral measures, together shaping, in the words of Annan, “…the most extensive and far-reaching reforms in the fifty-two year history of this Organization” (Annan, 1997: 1). A step in the renewal was reaching out to civil society and the private sector. The work of the UN on most areas increasingly depends on contributions of non-governmental actors and the report states that a growing international economy has:

(31)

…established the private sector as the major driving force of international economic change. Yet despite those growing manifestations of an ever-more robust global civil society, the United Nations is at present inadequately equipped to engage civil society and make it a true partner in its work.

(Annan, 1997: paragraph 59)

Annan intended to make arrangements to open the organization up to close partnerships, increasing cooperation between the UN and private sector actors as well as civil society (Annan, 1997: paragraph 59). This mission to actively engage with business charted a new course for the UN, and soon partnership projects within UN agencies took shape and Annan took on a role as beacon for the business-friendly approach, meeting regularly with business leaders around the world. The introduction of the new course culminated with Annan’s speech at the WEF on January 31^st 1999, announcing the birth of the Global Compact as a cornerstone in changed UN-business relations (Hummel, 2005; Rasche, 2012). Thus, the speeches at the WEF, targeting business and with the Global Compact as a key theme, should be seen as an element in a broader quest to change discourse, to draw on Vatz. They are tools for the rhetor – Annan – to alter the reality of UN-business relations.

Audience at the World Economic Forum

A speech is distinctive in that it is produced to be held only once and consists of instantaneous characteristics, although it lives on as text. It has a function to produce action or change in the world (Bitzer, 1968: 4), and in this case the overall function is to convince business leaders to sign on to the Global Compact. As Annan seeks to achieve an effect with his audience, let us for a moment consider that audience. According to Bitzer, changing the situation requires an audience with the power to influence the situation; an audience that can become mediators of change. This includes both the direct audience and the indirect audience (Bitzer, 1968: 7-8).

The direct audience at the WEF consists of 2.500 participants, most of whom represent the elite of business leaders from all over the world. They are influential people in the sense that they lead the world’s largest global enterprises that set visible footprints on the development of the private sector and the regions in which they operate. They are gathered at the annual meeting in Davos, which forms the flagship of the WEF and focuses on discussions around key issues of global concern. The organization is independent and “…committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas” (WEF). So the project of the WEF goes well with the project of the Global Compact. In fact, as well as providing the opportunity to address his key audience directly, the WEF is a fitting setting for Annan to deliver the messages encompassed in the Global Compact. The WEF is a prime forum for CEOs and political leaders, as well as representatives from civil and academic society, to meet and work on

Proposal of a Compact between the United Nations and Business